Evidence for God from Science

Cross.eyed wrote:I read it four times giving thought to each reading.

No no no. I only said to re-read it once. Four times is like turkey leftovers forever and ever.

Cross.eyed wrote:It comes up as Pascal's Wager being possibly derived from Augustine's statement

Pascal's Wager? Is that when he said something to the effect of «I might as well believe in God because I have a lot to lose if He exists but nothing to lose if He doesn't» ?

FL

Cross.eyed wrote:

For this is the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. For it is as man that He is the Mediator and the Way. Since, if the way lieth between him who goes and the place wither he goes, there is hope of his reaching it; but if there be no way, or if he know not where it is, what boots it to know whither he should go? Now the only way that is infallibly secured against all mistakes, is when the very same person is at once God and man, God our end, man our way. -Book XI, last paragraph of chap. 2

Read it again. Look past the old English and meditate on it.

FL

I read it four times giving thought to each reading.
It comes up as Pascal's Wager being possibly derived from Augustine's statement, that is if i'm not reading too much into it.
Now my head hurts.

LOL

Fürstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Cross.eyed wrote:I read it four times giving thought to each reading.

No no no. I only said to re-read it once. Four times is like turkey leftovers forever and ever.

Cross.eyed wrote:It comes up as Pascal's Wager being possibly derived from Augustine's statement

Pascal's Wager? Is that when he said something to the effect of «I might as well believe in God because I have a lot to lose if He exists but nothing to lose if He doesn't» ?

FL

Lol.
I was curious, and since cross.eyed didn't answer yet, I looked it up. Yes, that's it (but you probably really already knew that, FL).

I had a hard time with the "boot" sentence. Is it all there and correct? It seems to me that he's saying that Christ is the only way for salvation, and that God was man and man was God, and Christ is him. Am I being too simple? (Isn't modern English hard enough, lol?)

PS: cross.eyed, Raul Ries' testimony can be found at his church's website too, which is here: http://calvarygs.org/calvary/raul_ries.html

cslewislover wrote:I was curious, and since cross.eyed didn't answer yet, I looked it up. Yes, that's it (but you probably really already knew that, FL).

Yes, I knew. I'm one of those weirdos who used to read Pascal. I have a book by him somewhere...

Cross.eyed wrote:It comes up as Pascal's Wager being possibly derived from Augustine's statement, that is if i'm not reading too much into it.

I think you are reading too much into the quote by Augustine. Ain't no Pascal's Wager in there. Maybe that cranberry sauce on your Thanksgiving turkey had started fermenting...

cslewislover wrote:I had a hard time with the "boot" sentence. Is it all there and correct?

Yes, I copied it correctly. This is a little like Gman's questionning of the word «rape» in the NIV. Here, the verb to boot is archaic English and means to be of help/advantage.

My take on the quote by Augustine is that Christ is both totally man, and totally God. As humans, we can never hope to be reconciled to God. Jesus, as the Way [to God], and by virtue of His dual nature, gives believers access to God.

FL

I read it four times giving thought to each reading.

I'm slow...

No no no. I only said to re-read it once. Four times is like turkey leftovers forever and ever.

Yep, I felt leftover and had I stayed with it, my brain would have fried.

Pascal's Wager? Is that when he said something to the effect of «I might as well believe in God because I have a lot to lose if He exists but nothing to lose if He doesn't» ?

[/quote]
That seems to be the popular thought, but I read the whole "wager" at WikiPedia and found it quite different (keep in mind my lack of thinking capacity here) as it didn't seem at all a "wager"

Please forgive me brother, but I just had to give a try!
I've edited this five times and still can't get the quotes right.

cslewislover wrote:That's weird, as it just worked for me. I've seen that on other boards, though, where some people have a hard time with a link and other's don't. Maybe you could go to YouTube and search for Raul Ries? He was quite the violent person until he came to Christ.

When I worked with domestic violence victims at the courthouse, I found that even though the perpetrators were often required to take classes to get them to stop their abuse, only a small fraction ever got better. I think it was 3%. In fact, they often learned how to be more efficient abusers.

Raul Ries' testimony can be found at his church's website too, which is here: http://calvarygs.org/calvary/raul_ries.html

Someone asked me about this, and I think our correspondence is worth posting here. It's not only good and interesting info (I think), but just so you know, Raul Ries, now a pastor of a large and lively church, was getting ready to kill his wife when he found Christ. That's why I posted what I did above. God works in our lives in wonderful ways. (Otherwise, I felt like remembering that young lady, at the end, a little more.) Oh, and the abusers got better at abusing, like bringing a woman closer to death without actually killer her - that's what I meant.

Question:

"Vicki!

I read somewhere that you used to work in court (I don't remember in what capacity, though) and that you said that the system cures maybe 3% of wife abusers; the others just get better at not being caught.

I have no numbers, but my gut feeling is that criminals here are not reformed in jail either. The ones I have seen truly reformed have found Christ. Salvation is the surest social service."

Response:
Yes, I think that's true. I think if anyone "reforms" by some other means, they'll revert back eventually. I mean even with Christ, there are some sins hard to not revert back to at times. As part of my training as a victim specialist we had an intense week-long session on sexual assault. Oi. By the end of the week, you felt paranoid (really). Anyway, one of the things I recall is that pedophiles simply can't be reformed. The "cure" rate was like 1% or less.

Oh, this is interesting, and I just remembered it, going back in my mind and thinking about all this. The primary person doing this session for us was a criminal investigator and a practicing jew, and he told everyone there - and wasn't afraid to say it - that if you get involved in this type of work, you must have some kind-of spiritual belief because you just won't last otherwise. But anyway, I brought this up because of a little story he told us. There was this serial rapist out there they were trying to catch, I think he even killed the victims. There was one person who was almost his victim, but she got away becasue of her faith. What happened was that this guy encountered her, I think in an elevator, and he told her what he was going to do. But she said no, she couldn't do that, because she had to wait until she got married (I believe she said it was because of what the bible said). That had an effect on him and he let her go.

You know, there are women who get killed by their abusers, of course. There were some who we got restraining orders for who were killed later. There was one I helped that I can still remember, and I was just thinking about her the other day, even though it's been a long time now. It makes me so sad. She was young and vibrant and wonderful. And her young boyfriend killed her, put her in his trunk, and left to dump her out in the desert area. A policeman actually stopped him on his way there, but didn't search the trunk or anything. He went and dumped her. After a while, he turned himself in. I don't know. I just remember her sometimes.

I think you are reading too much into the quote by Augustine. Ain't no Pascal's Wager in there. Maybe that cranberry sauce on your Thanksgiving turkey had started fermenting...

Yes I did read too much into it-I'll explain in a moment....

Maybe...(snicker) it was because I didn't have a Thanksgiving dinner at all. My wife went to New York City over the weekend and I worked the evening shift.

cslewislover wrote:I had a hard time with the "boot" sentence. Is it all there and correct?

I admit it, the boot thing kicked me too.

Yes, I copied it correctly. This is a little like Gman's questionning of the word «rape» in the NIV. Here, the verb to boot is archaic English and means to be of help/advantage.

Thanks, that would have booted me if you would have explained it earlier.
Have you no pity for the mentally deficient?

My take on the quote by Augustine is that Christ is both totally man, and totally God. As humans, we can never hope to be reconciled to God. Jesus, as the Way [to God], and by virtue of His dual nature, gives believers access to God.

I thought that was a given and went on searching for a deeper meaning.
The next time you ask me to meditate something, please give me some advance notice so I can wrap my head with duct tape. That way, I will at least have all of the pieces left after my head explodes.

That goes for us all, lol.

cslewislover wrote: That goes for us all, lol.

That was refering to the verb to boot. Its archaic meaning still exists in modern English: I bought a used car and got 4 new tires to boot! OK...that's not a verb but it carries a similar meaning as the old verb: an advantage.

Anyway, I have finished reading Pascal's Pensées.* What surprised me the most was discovering that Pascal was what we would call a bona fide born again Christian. The book is suprisingly easy to read, even for a high-school dropout like me. So those of you on these boards whith more smarts should be able to get through it. If there are some passages that you find too difficult, ask me and I'll explain.


As for the Wikipedia article on Pascal's Wager, I looked it over and generally agree with what is in there except with the part that suggests Pascal may be the precursor to Existentialism. Baloney! Also, all the Wiki article below the heading Criticism is just junk... and probably written by agnostics/atheists.

The «Wager» itself is what I wrote earlier, but to sum it up so much cheats your understanding. This is a book a Christian would do well to read.

FL

*I had previously read this book in my early twenties as an atheist.

Fürstentum Liechtenstein wrote: Anyway, I have finished reading Pascal's Pensées.* What surprised me the most was discovering that Pascal was what we would call a bona fide born again Christian. The book is suprisingly easy to read, even for a high-school dropout like me. So those of you on these boards whith more smarts should be able to get through it. If there are some passages that you find too difficult, ask me and I'll explain.


FL

OK. Maybe someone here can award you one of those Ellis Jr Doctorates, and you can visit all the nations and kingdoms of the world, too, imparting your wisdom you've earned through vector knowledge. (Just teasing you, of course - you have more wisdom and common sense than a lot of professors.)

cslewislover wrote: OK. Maybe someone here can award you one of those Ellis Jr Doctorates, and you can visit all the nations and kingdoms of the world, too, imparting your wisdom you've earned through vector knowledge.

I like that idea! It vectored in nicely!

-Dr. FL

I am bumping this thread so I can find it

I am writing something on the "Cloud of Unknowing" but was delayed a bit. Caught a nasty cold going on day 8 of it now so getting better now - ye ha!

Cold and cough medicine and makes you a bit goofy

So I better wait and psot 'er' post laetr, hmmm, later
-
-
-

Hope you're feeling all better now, BW!

This post covers only about one-third of Julian's 14th Showing. I will post the other two-thirds as soon as I can.

14. About seeking Christ in trust and prayer; He is the ground for this. The writing on this showing is very long; the longest, in fact, covering 63 pages out of all the showings' 183, and it is very lovely and very encouraging. First, the Lord showed her “two conditions for prayer: one is rightfulness, and the other sure trust” (p 79). We often feel empty and not sure, so our trust is not complete. But when we pray, it is of the Lord's doing, so we need to trust in it. “. . . it is utterly impossible that we should seek mercy and grace and not have it. Quite simply, all the things that our good Lord makes us seek and ask for, he has ordained as ours from without beginning (p 80). In this God is good, not us; Jesus is the ground of our seeking (in prayer), not us, and thus it is not our goodness. Thankfulness is also a part of prayer.

There are three things that are part of our praying. One, our prayer arises by Jesus and this is by his goodness only. Two, the “why” and “what for” of praying is to turn our will into our Lord's. Three, the fruit of our praying is that we will be oned with Jesus, and be like him.

We dishonor Jesus when we do not greatly trust in our prayers, since he is the ground of them. We will be given mercy and grace when we ask. There are times when we've prayed a long time and our prayer does not seem to be answered. Julian tells us that “either we must wait for a better time, or an increase in grace, or perhaps an even greater gift” (p 83). He has done everything before we even pray about it.

"For prayer is a right understanding of the fullness of joy that is to come, as well as longing and the sure trust that it will be ours. Failing to have the full joy that has been promised us makes us long for it all the more; but true understanding and love, mindful of our sweet Saviour's purpose, brings with it the grace to trust in him. And in these two workings—of longing and of trust—our Lord beholds us continually; such is our dutiful task, and in his goodness he expects nothing less of us (p 84)."

Our prayers bring us, our soul, closer to the will of God, and so one with him; we are restored and enabled by grace. Julian describes in sensual terms our delight and longing for the Lord, helped through the Holy Spirit, and our ultimate union with him (p 86).

"Truth sees God, and wisdom beholds God, and of these two comes the third: that is, a holy marvelous delight in God, which is love. . . . And the soul is a creature in God, that has the same properties though they be made. And so now and evermore it does what it was made for: it sees God, it beholds God and it loves God. And because of this, God takes enjoyment in his creature, and the creature in God, both endlessly marveling. . . . the brightness and the clearness of truth and wisdom makes us see and know that we are made for love: in which love God endlessly keeps us (pp 87-88)."

Julian tells us that God judges us according to our human nature, but people judge us by our changing moods and conditions; God does not blame us. She says that this goes against church teaching, and refers to them as higher and lower judgments. She never fully understands this, but refers the reader to another showing, that of the lord and servant. In addition, she says that the whole meaning of the revelation was to show how we are kept in salvation, yet she also always saw what the church teaches, and she was to take both to heart. Still, our Lord is never “wroth” with us. “Our soul is oned to him, who is unchangeable goodness, and between God and our soul there is neither wrath nor need of forgiveness in his sight” (p 91).

Julian says that she always thought of God's mercy as something related to him forgiving our sins — that he overcomes his wrath with mercy. But, this is not so; he is not wrathful toward us. This is because we are frail and this life is hard, and we can't see God; if we could see God, we wouldn't do the sinful things we do.

Regarding mercy, she saw that the ground of it is love and that we are kept in love through mercy, and so mercy seemed the same as love. When we fail, even, mercy keeps us because all is by design anyway. Mercy is like tender love, with pity; grace is uplifting and rewarding. We have wrath within ourselves, and God's mercy and grace work toward lessening this.

cslewislover, just wanted to thank you for the Raul Ries testamony link.
I read it with the fascination of what kind of person he began with and what he became-amazing !

Before Christ entered his heart, he was one 'ornery cuss.

Cross.eyed wrote:cslewislover, just wanted to thank you for the Raul Ries testamony link.
I read it with the fascination of what kind of person he began with and what he became-amazing !

Before Christ entered his heart, he was one 'ornery cuss.

Yes and thnak you for that too
-
-
-